Older Superstock GT cars with scoops

[Shawn Blair]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Jeff, If infact you had a 68 hemi car and had to tape over the scoop, then why would you want a big ol' scoop sticking up? If you were to remove it, would you then have to replace all the liteweight seats and glass and such?
I'm with you though. If you run the hemi body and shipping weight, then you ought to be able to run it the way it came.
Doesn't matter what we say or think anyway. They're gonna do any GD thing they want with the rules.

One good reason for the scoop would be carb clearance, this would be a good thing if running the 1962 343horse 383 combo with a tunnel ram. I'm still waiting to see that one! It would have to be fast with those two carbs.

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Shawn Blair

One good reason for the scoop would be carb clearance, this would be a good thing if running the 1962 343horse 383 combo with a tunnel ram. I'm still waiting to see that one! It would have to be fast with those two carbs.

Yes, open or not the key is carb and manifold clearance. A budget racer could take a 380 2x4 carb and use your basic Weind cast aluminum tunnel ram under one of these scoops. A lot less money than a sheet-metal tunnel ram; and possibly more effective. I would think the tall scoop would open up some new technology for the 6-pack 340/440 intake manifolds as well.

Looks like Teuton and Hale have the open scoop issue worked out with NHRA. Jeff, are you considering the 383/343? I guess a 440/375/350 engine would also be a killer. Guess you could even run a Weind/Edelbrock single 4bbl tunnel ram in that car, on any mopar engine.

[X-TECH MAN]

Same deal for the 55-57 Chevy's. Theres room for a tunnel ram on any of the 350/327 engines in these cars and clear the hood as on the 265's they run now. How about a killer 318 or 360 for your AMX? Like I said the combinations are almost unlimited as long as the 8 lb. minimum for GT is met. I guess a 4000 + lb GT/A car with a race Hemi would be unreasonable.....lol.

[Jeff Teuton]

We have a 383 and a 440, and we might try a 440-6 in the future. We expect to test in 2 to 3 weeks

[Bryan Broaddus]

I asked Bruce Bacheldor at the Finals in Pomona about running the 69 Corvette in GT with the L-88 hood. He said no on the hood! He didn't offer any reason and I didn't push it.

[bill dedman]

I was GOING to suggest that the rationale behind open or closed-off scoops would logically lay with the engine's original horsepower factor; if the engine was out of a car that had fresh air, then the factord HP rating would reflect that, and in a different chassis, then it would be legal with an open scoop (fresh air.) That made all kinds of sense to me. Anything else, and you're not being true to the original operational parameters that gave the engine that particular factor in the first place.

THEN, before I made a complete fool of myself by posting something that had a hint of logic to it, I decided to go and see how much factored HP difference there was in the so-called "Ram-Air" (fresh air) packages that used open scoops, and the ones that didn't (otherwise identical engines, like the early Cobra Jat Mustangs, some of which had "Ram Air".)

Guess what??? NO DIFFERENCE! At some point, NHRA has decided that a fresh air package is worth NOTHING in terms of factored horsepower... but, they stilll list the different (fresh air or no) combinations.... they just give them identical horsepower.

Admittedly, I only looked at a few examples, but it was obvious to me from what I saw, that NHRA had gone through the list and either cut the fresh air motors back to the closed-in, no scoop models' factored HP ratings, OR upped the rating on the no-scoop models to match the fresh air engines' factors.

I must not have been in class that day.... That phenomenon has come about totally without my having noticed it.

Beings that there's no difference in the ratings, why would they CARE which engines have operational fresh-air systems??? I can't imagine that they would.

So, this is one in which there IS no argument that I can see, that scoops that were on a car would have to be closed off, because as NHRA has shown us in their sacred Classification Guide, they aren't worth even ONE HORSEPOWER.... Check it out...

Admittedly, I didn't check them all, but I did look at several combinations that had both underhood air vs. fresh air, and all the ones I looked at had identical factors.

It is a mess...

Bill

[Myron Piatek]

I believe NHRA use to have an automatic 5 HP factor for fresh air combos - '70's?

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by bill dedman

I was GOING to suggest that the rationale behind open or closed-off scoops would logically lay with the engine's original horsepower factor; if the engine was out of a car that had fresh air, then the factord HP rating would reflect that, and in a different chassis, then it would be legal with an open scoop (fresh air.) That made all kinds of sense to me. Anything else, and you're not being true to the original operational parameters that gave the engine that particular factor in the first place.

THEN, before I made a complete fool of myself by posting something that had a hint of logic to it, I decided to go and see how much factored HP difference there was in the so-called "Ram-Air" (fresh air) packages that used open scoops, and the ones that didn't (otherwise identical engines, like the early Cobra Jat Mustangs, some of which had "Ram Air".)

Guess what??? NO DIFFERENCE! At some point, NHRA has decided that a fresh air package is worth NOTHING in terms of factored horsepower... but, they stilll list the different (fresh air or no) combinations.... they just give them identical horsepower.

Admittedly, I only looked at a few examples, but it was obvious to me from what I saw, that NHRA had gone through the list and either cut the fresh air motors back to the closed-in, no scoop models' factored HP ratings, OR upped the rating on the no-scoop models to match the fresh air engines' factors.

I must not have been in class that day.... That phenomenon has come about totally without my having noticed it.

Beings that there's no difference in the ratings, why would they CARE which engines have operational fresh-air systems??? I can't imagine that they would.

So, this is one in which there IS no argument that I can see, that scoops that were on a car would have to be closed off, because as NHRA has shown us in their sacred Classification Guide, they aren't worth even ONE HORSEPOWER.... Check it out...

Admittedly, I didn't check them all, but I did look at several combinations that had both underhood air vs. fresh air, and all the ones I looked at had identical factors.

It is a mess...

Bill

Sorry Bill, that occured maybe 20 years ago? I'm not sure when but it was a LONG LONG time ago. It's a technicality as to when and why but I'm under the impression it was a result of 428 CJ racers changing hoods from flat (Q code) to shaker (R code) and NHRA seeing it didn't seem to affect performance one way or the other. I can only offer my own experiments on my '70 AMX. I was curious in D/S what the affects were. Sealing off the scoops (which probably aren't much more; if any, effective of something like a mopar / ford shaker), and even running with and without a K&N filter I found no ET one way or another and MAYBE as much as (point) .2 MPH. And that's on a 124-125 MPH stocker.
I'm sure a 145-150 MPH SS car like a SS Dart/Barracuda or SS/AMX would see different results but NHRA has, as Bill pointed out, set the bar across the board that it doesn't seem to matter.
I still contend the scoop is a body part not an engine part and if NHRA allows cars like Hale or Teuton (non-hemi in '68 hemi A-body SS/GT car), then it should be across the board. That would include the SS/AMX scoop and the L-88 Corvette scoop.